Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Green check.png
This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy.

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia  
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
v e

Wikipedia loss of creative contributions[edit]

The original rule spoke to the need to for Wikipedia be a welcoming place for people to contribute, as well as to establish that the framework is self defined and flexible (avoiding nosy neighbor types complaining about how people break rules). This seems very prescient, as many of the pages have fallen into disrepair and once major improvement projects have been abandoned for so long that the rating system is completely broken. All because it is too painful for people to contribute due to:

  • the rules we impose
  • the nosy neighbors reverting content because it breaks rules instead of fixing it
  • the lack of a community that accepts casual contributors that may be IP

It takes a welcoming community that values its contributors to keep wikipedia alive. I strongly advocate language that can be seen as giving leverage to the viewpoint that ignoring rules is critical to becoming a more welcoming community and fixing issues rather than punishing individuals by reverting and warnings should be the SOP. I do not know if this would help, but it is important to slow the decline in any way we can.192.26.8.4 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

If somebody uses IAR as an excuse for vandalism, do administrators also use that as an excuse for the block? 83.9.194.6 (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Already answered at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:IAR. - Station1 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording tweaks for fifth pillar link[edit]

The current wording for the fifth pillar link in the see also section is The 5th of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia has no firm rules. That language is a little clunky, which definitely stands out in a page kept as deliberately simple as possible. See also links are normally just the page title, so I'd be alright with the very simple Fifth pillar of Wikipedia, but if we're going to spell it out, I'd prefer Fifth pillar of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has no firm rules". My reasoning for the tweaks:

  • "Fifth" should be spelled out per MOS:NUMERAL and because WP:Five pillars spells it out in the page title.
  • "Pillars" should not be capitalized, again to match the destination page title.
  • "The" should be removed per WP:THE.
  • The fact that the fifth pillar is the last of the five pillars is mediumly important, but not so essential as to be needed here. Anyone who clicks through will see its positioning.
  • Whether or not to include quote marks is the element I'm least sure about, but it should be consistent with the line directly beneath it, which puts quote marks around "ignore all rules", so for now let's do the same here.

Does all this sound alright? Thanks for humoring my pickiness. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Remember, Sdkb, to avoid confusion all humoring must be marked with {{humor}} or a similar indicator. EEng 04:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The quotes are in the last item because the linked page uses quotes. The just-above suggestion is good but it's too visually jarring to not have all words in blue. I would write:
Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • All blue works on the fifth pillar wording, but the italics don't fit with Wikipedia style. It actually reads as if it could go without quote marks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool that you confirmed an understanding of "in a page kept as deliberately simple as possible". I have not pondered the details, but generally support the effort on and general nature of those minor tweaks.North8000 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021[edit]

188.163.99.14 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

No change has been suggested. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

From an old arbitration case[edit]

I found this on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#"Ignore_all_rules":

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is one of the project's oldest policies and advises users: "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This advice can be helpful when addressing uncontroversial or unanticipated situations in which the project can best be helped by avoiding the unintended consequences that would occur by applying the literal wording of a policy. However, "ignore all rules" should not be used to circumvent a consensus decision about the application of a policy.

EEng 04:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have on many occasions ignored a rule here, but I would not dare ignore arbcom :) HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)